But it isn't? You and jadedog act as if Imzy's just sowing discontent and shoot at the new President, misleading the audience.
I'm not doing that at all. I also don't think it's a fair characterization that you're saying that I'm acting as if I am doing so. Do you think Imzy needs to mislead the audience to sow discontent with the new President? I don't. There's plenty of real news out there for them to base that on. They could point to the women's march today. Yesterday, they could have just left off the part about the website and sent the rest of their email. The message would be the same. Instead, they used the non-existence of information on a website that could be timing based to infer something that may or may not be posted later. They readily admit they don't know if there will be new information about it. That's weak information to be making a point about. My point was that making points on weak information can lead to people not paying attention when the real points are made.
Also, this: @francopoli said here I hope you don't think I'm just blasting you with references to avoid replying on the matter: I just said and saw everything I require to reply in other posts.Whitehouse.gov at 11:59AM was all about the Obama Administration. At 12:00PM it became the website of the Trump Administration. The entire whitehouse.gov website was changed. Art, images, layout etc all changed. The Obama stuff was archived as prescribed by US law. The Trump people had a few months to provide the whitehouse.gov admins the data to populate the website. The results are what went live at noon.
IMZY is a website and they are coloured by that bubble. As I explained before they are comparing the website of the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration and making the story about the contents of the website, not the policy differences between to the two men's outlooks. I may be too far in the weeds here and I may be trying to split hay.
I'm confused. Don't you suppose that a president's policies-related outlook would be clearly established on their website? If it would, wouldn't lack of information on certain subjects that are of importance to the contemporary population of the US (or, at least, to big parts of it) indicate that the President has nothing to say on the matter, ergo he doesn't care about it (or, worse, that he has grimmer plans about it that he doesn't want to share because of the possible outcry)? That's the connection that I've made, and I'm not sure why we're arguing this in the first place.As I explained before they are comparing the website of the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration and making the story about the contents of the website, not the policy differences between to the two men's outlooks.
Lena Dunham... this person. Did some more digging into IMZY and it looks like they are trying to become a left-wing Free Republic with a lot of TMZ/Entertainment Weekly and Silicon Valley Venture Capital Culture mixed in. Places like this have their function, but there is a reason I don't go there.It has partnered with Lena Dunham.
francopoli is right when he says that there are going to be a lot of parodies and sarcasm that is not detected and taken seriously. I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Is this sarcasm? I'm pretty sure I know groups on both sides of that opinion, with a group squarely on that opinion.
Lena Dunham is an entirely self-serving person who does more harm than good to feminist movements.